You are here

Pages

I'm not sure if I should post this in Sports or politics, but I'm posting it here because I think it's more of a discussion of what's wrong with American culture. I'm sure most of us have heard about how legendary Penn State coach Joe Paterno was for all practical purposes an accomplice to child rape. But that's not what I want to talk about so much as discussing how THOUSANDS of Penn State fans have reacted. Instead of coming out in solidarity of the victims, they rioted to protect their chance at going to a bowl.

So, here's my question: how has American culture fallen so far as to value a winning football franchise above everything else? I wish I could say that this is a Penn State-specific problem, but we all know rapes and abuse of other students by football players and coaches goes unpunished all the time. What makes Penn State so notable is the case involved little kids.

PS - to everyone who argued with me about whether or not America is a rape culture, I give in. I was wrong - you were right. Any sane culture would have Penn State fans protesting outside Paterno's house.

Maybe, maybe not. Cultural and regional differences occur because of a difference in lifestyle and/or education. Child sex is not a serious issue in many of the middle class communities in the Philippines because we live so dang close together and there are so many of us that there's just not a whole lot of opportunities to get that much alone with a child, even when you're bathing. Most such incidents occur in the home, usually with the father, and usually with the knowledge of one or more household members.

Close supervision by multiple adults at any one time is a common safeguard.

It may be that in the single-income household of mid 1900s America, it was easier to keep an equally great or greater watch on the children (by the wives?). Even a coach would not dare any remote inkling of sex abuse under the direct observation of a child's parent. Greater reporting is a possibility, but it's best to consider all angles. A university environment like Penn State is especially troubling for a parent, by nature of its isolation. I keep remembering what Sherlock Holmes says about the quiet horror of the bucolic English countryside.

Given these factors at work, it's plausible that what happened at Penn State is happening at some other American university right now.

WHY?? Why is it hard to claim? I don't get this. Does PSU have some sort of Pedo-detector I am unaware of? UNTIL allegations progressed there is no reason to ban him, and ONCE allegations progressed he was banned. What sort of psychic ability are you ascribing to those at PSU? Aside from the criminal actions of those who OBSTRUCTED allegations from progressing?

It just really hard to claim the PSU the organization is blameless when so many of it's senior administration knew about Sandusky. At a certain point you just have to admit that the organization *is* the senior leadership.

Sandusky admitted to campus police that he took showers and hugged little boys when questioned in 1998. That admission alone should have gotten him fired and banned from campus for the simple reason that adult men don't shower with 10-year-old boys, especially when they aren't related.

You can rest assured that that campus police report was read by the university's administration because it was such a potentially explosive issue. And even knowing that Sandusky took showers with little boys, that same administration allowed him to retire and gave him access to university facilities where he subsequently molested at least two other kids.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.

As others have said, Penn State needs to do what is ethically and morally correct now, not just legally correct, and shut down their football program (at least for a few years). It's simply too tainted. Penn State fans can suck it up and at least show the rest of the world that making sure they aren't supporting child molesters is vastly more important than them getting to go to football games for a season or two.

Everybody should be fired and imprisoned as appropriate, but shutting down the football program is too harsh and will affect hundreds of innocent kids including kids not affiliated with the football program.

I will condone shutting down the football program once every other organization that has had criminals associated with it are shut down. Let's start with the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, etc.

Everybody should be fired and imprisoned as appropriate, but shutting down the football program is too harsh and will affect hundreds of innocent kids including kids not affiliated with the football program.

How, exactly, will shutting down the program affect hundreds of innocent kids? More importantly, what's the ratio of molested kids to helped kids that justifies keeping the program going? There's something like 15 boys who have come forward so far, so there has to be a freakin' lot of good the football program does to outweigh the damage it's caused.

Just shut it down. Anyone playing for Penn State now is essentially playing for Team Child Molester. Nothing good will come out of them continuing to play except proving that Penn State fans care more about football than they do justice.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.

As Jeff-66 implies, it appears that the problem ranges beyond just Penn State, or just universities. Rather than ask "Who deserves punishment?", it appears more pragmatic to me to ask, "What will this measure achieve?" Will dismantling Penn State's university football program do anything to stop possible child abuse in inner city urban schools, and the is the cost commensurate to the benefits?

Everybody should be fired and imprisoned as appropriate, but shutting down the football program is too harsh and will affect hundreds of innocent kids including kids not affiliated with the football program.

I will condone shutting down the football program once every other organization that has had criminals associated with it are shut down. Let's start with the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, etc.

I've been involved with Boy Scouts with my son for the last couple of years. I'm now an assistant Scoutmaster with his troop and I can assure you firsthand that the BSA takes the issue of child abuse VERY seriously. Not just sexual abuse, physical and emotional abuse are also included and it's a zero tolerance policy. Perhaps they've learned their lesson. The concept of child protection has been pounded into my head since day one. Every adult in contact with the boys in our troop are required to take a course called "Youth Protection". Each adult leader knows specifically what he or she is supposed to do if they even suspect abuse.

I can't promise you that all troops take it to the level that we do but I can tell you our troop is drop dead serious and every one of our parents knows it. I can also tell you that if I ever caught an adult raping one of my Scouts it won't take 8-10 years to resolve the problem.

“When I discovered a new plant, I sat down beside it for a minute or a day, to make its
acquaintance and hear what it had to tell.” -- John Muir

The level of histrionics in this thread is rising off the charts. The "football program" is as much to blame as "the university"; if you think the football program should be shut down, I assume you'd be fine with just closing up Penn State in its entirety. What appears to have happened is that a bunch of asshats committed a crime to cover up an even bigger crime. Hopefully, a number of those asshats go to jail for a long time as an object lesson. Shutting a football team down because of this doesn't accomplish anything.

OG_slinger wrote:

Just shut it down. Anyone playing for Penn State now is essentially playing for Team Child Molester. Nothing good will come out of them continuing to play except proving that Penn State fans care more about football than they do justice.

This? This is what has happened. Which is fine. Penn State's football program does not need to be shut down; it's going to be utterly gutted by the scandal. I would go so far as to say that Penn State football and the mythos of Joe Paterno are what put that school on the map; it's why they've been "special". This scandal is going to send recruits fleeing to other schools. I suspect the NCAA to announce that players currently at Penn State can transfer immediately without the usually-mandated waiting a year before playing for another school. PSU is going to go from a prestigious institution to a cesspool, and it will take years to get back to anywhere near where they were.

And yes, I'm fine with that as an effective punishment for the *football team*. The *individuals* responsible for any cover-up need to rot in jail. The football program itself will suffer its own form of effectively self-inflicted punishment.

As Jeff-66 implies, it appears that the problem ranges beyond just Penn State, or just universities. Rather than ask "Who deserves punishment?", it appears more pragmatic to me to ask, "What will this measure achieve?" Will dismantling Penn State's university football program do anything to stop possible child abuse in inner city urban schools, and the is the cost commensurate to the benefits?

That is a good question

I think the answer is that it would show that covering up a crime of this magnitude will be dealt with harshly. If you have knowledge of a crime and do not report to the police - you are part of a criminal conspiracy.

*edit* To be clear, I am not of the opinion that the program should be shut down. I think they are hosed anyways as their top people are out. I *do* think that anyone that had prior knowledge of the allegations should be held accountable and fired.

What I really object to is the idea that football is a right and its priority treatment/ the fact that people were less than diligent in their handling of the matter (it at least seems so thus far), seemingly to protect the reputation of the program.

As Jeff-66 implies, it appears that the problem ranges beyond just Penn State, or just universities. Rather than ask "Who deserves punishment?", it appears more pragmatic to me to ask, "What will this measure achieve?" Will dismantling Penn State's university football program do anything to stop possible child abuse in inner city urban schools, and the is the cost commensurate to the benefits?

That is a good question

I think the answer is that it would show that covering up a crime of this magnitude will be dealt with harshly. If you have knowledge of a crime and do not report to the police - you are part of a criminal conspiracy.

This is still where the disconnect is for me. If you are part of a criminal conspiracy, then you should punished by the government/law enforcement. Where does the football program fit into this?

For the record, I could not care less about sports and have no interest in defending football or Penn State. I just don't understand the need to do anything beyond prosecute the individuals involved.

How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

How does shutting down the football program help?

I think I said this earlier, but you have many colleges where the worst actors, be they boosters or coaches or ex-coaches are a result of the athletic programs. I think it's completely justified to shut down a sports program when the sports program is actually endangering the integrity of the college. Students who could care less about the football team are likely to have their tuition go up as the college fights law suits. At a certain point it should be the duty of colleges to defend the integrity of education from sports. Football, once again, used to be just another extracurricular activity. Like being in the band or the school newspaper. And groups like that get shut down and re-instituted constantly depending on the needs of the school. Be they legal, financial, whatever. I think it's fair for SallyNasty to question why football is untouchable. Because we like watching it? Because there may be a few actual student-athletes who play it?

At this point in Division 1 sports these are basically semi-pro sports teams except that they're subsidized by a college whose primary function should be to educate. Putting aside coaches covering up for child rape, there is talk going on about divorcing football programs from schools altogether. Ending the sham of having the athletes go to school with heavy assists from tutors. That's an actual discussion taking place because of how detached football programs have gotten from the schools where they're located. So why should they be sacred?

Once again, this comes from someone who played college football. I just think there comes a time when the program is a liability and you have to ask yourself whether the school would be better of focusing on running a school.

How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

How does shutting down the football program help?

I think I said this earlier, but you have many colleges where the worst actors, be they boosters or coaches or ex-coaches are a result of the athletic programs. I think it's completely justified to shut down a sports program when the sports program is actually endangering the integrity of the college. Students who could care less about the football team are likely to have their tuition go up as the college fights law suits. At a certain point it should be the duty of colleges to defend the integrity of education from sports. Football, once again, used to be just another extracurricular activity. Like being in the band or the school newspaper. And groups like that get shut down and re-instituted constantly depending on the needs of the school. Be they legal, financial, whatever. I think it's fair for SallyNasty to question why football is untouchable. Because we like watching it? Because there may be a few actual student-athletes who play it?

At this point in Division 1 sports these are basically semi-pro sports teams except that they're subsidized by a college whose primary function should be to educate. Putting aside coaches covering up for child rape, there is talk going on about divorcing football programs from schools altogether. Ending the sham of having the athletes go to school with heavy assists from tutors. That's an actual discussion taking place because of how detached football programs have gotten from the schools where they're located. So why should they be sacred?

This makes a lot of sense to me, for sure. I completely agree that Penn State should voluntarily shut down the program.

How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

The debate seems to be about whether a decision to 'kill' the football program or not is an overreaction. Framing those who think it is an overreaction as trying to "protect" football at the expense of kids is not a logical connection.

The real question is whether there will continue to be those at PSU who would protect criminals after those responsible for Sandusky are gone (fired and possibly imprisoned). If the answer is yes, then you need to shut down the program. If the answer is no, then you do not and it would be additional pain inflicted on many for no reason. Neither answer serves to help the victims of these particular crimes as justice will be done by the legal system for those at fault, not by Penn State.

Some here differ on how they would answer that question. But please don't assume that anyone here would answer, "Yes, some remain who would protect people who hurt kids but I'm ok with the program continuing." That hurts me if you think anyone here would answer that way. No one here is trying to protect the program over protecting kids.

I think it's fair for SallyNasty to question why football is untouchable.

I don't think it is. Mainly because no one has claimed football is untouchable and it's a diversion from the real issue.

Edit: And I think this gets back to your point earlier in the paragraph about the worst actors potentially being not a part of this scandal. If that is the case, I agree, I'm just frustrated by the question moving from "why should we shut down this college football program?" to "why are you protecting them?"

How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

The flipside of that is how will shutting down the football program help anyone?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

That's why I ask: is this about our distaste or is this about the victims? Sometimes those are the same, but in the case of a call to shut down the football program, I'm not so sure.

Of course there are people 'protecting a football program' and those people are idiots. However, just because someone doesn't think the football program should be shut down, that doesn't mean someone is interested in protecting a football program. That could just mean someone is interested in our rage over the issue being directed at targets that make a difference to something other than our own sense of well-being.

Sure it feels good to beat up on the football program. At the end of the day, though, what good does that do the victims? Getting rid of a coaching staff that was involved in a cover up? Yeah--that needs to happen, because obviously there's a problem with responsible authority there. Shutting down a football program? That just seems more about making us feel better than about anything to do with real justice.

The only argument I can see is that shutting down the program will make *other* programs in the future take these things more seriously--the concept of deterrence. It just doesn't feel like a lot of this "shut the program down" is motivated by that, though.

The level of histrionics in this thread is rising off the charts. The "football program" is as much to blame as "the university"; if you think the football program should be shut down, I assume you'd be fine with just closing up Penn State in its entirety.

I feel the proximity of these two sentences really needs to be highlighted.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I think it's fair for SallyNasty to question why football is untouchable.

I don't think it is. Mainly because no one has claimed football is untouchable and it's a diversion from the real issue.

I think the question begs to be asked: if the senior staff engaging in a criminal conspiracy to preserve the programs rep, or whatever they thought they were doing isn't sufficient cause to shut it down until major changes can be made, what is?

Everybody should be fired and imprisoned as appropriate, but shutting down the football program is too harsh and will affect hundreds of innocent kids including kids not affiliated with the football program.

How, exactly, will shutting down the program affect hundreds of innocent kids? More importantly, what's the ratio of molested kids to helped kids that justifies keeping the program going? There's something like 15 boys who have come forward so far, so there has to be a freakin' lot of good the football program does to outweigh the damage it's caused.

Just shut it down. Anyone playing for Penn State now is essentially playing for Team Child Molester. Nothing good will come out of them continuing to play except proving that Penn State fans care more about football than they do justice.

Who all is involved with this alleged cover-up? (not the crime itself, since that alone apparently would not warrant the shutdown of the football program) AFAIK, it's:

Note that I'm not justifying Paterno & McQueary for merely following the letter of the law, but they did do as they were legally required, though were still morally deficient (IMO).

If I'm missing someone, please let me know, but how do the actions of these men, warrant the shutdown of the entire football program? Do you know how many people are involved in the PSU football program? asst coaches, 100+ players, trainers, medical personnel, cheerleaders, and likely hundreds more. I count 3 men who were directly part of the football program, if we're to include Curley the A/D. Anything else, AFAIK, is merely assumption.

Shutting down the football program strikes me as an act of vengeance for reprehensible crimes that took place. Justice can be 100% served in this case without shutting down the football program. The university board has already taken swift & severe action going so far as to fire the university president and a living legend. The people involved are being dealt with by the school, and if found to have broken the law, I'm sure will be dealt with by the DA. I see no need to punish hundreds or thousands of innocents in the football program, not to mention millions of fans.

ETA: this is not about me 'protecting football' or about my love of the sport. If this was a baseball or lacrosse sport involved, I'd feel the same way. For me, this is about punishing those few involved and leaving the innocents out of it.

Shutting down the football program strikes me as an act of vengeance for reprehensible crimes that took place. Justice can be 100% served in this case without shutting down the football program. The university board has already taken swift & severe action going so far as to fire the university president and a living legend. The people involved are being dealt with by the school, and if found to have broken the law, I'm sure will be dealt with by the DA. I see no need to punish hundreds or thousands of innocents in the football program, not to mention millions of fans.

It's vengeance if you see it as an emotional reaction. Or if it is in fact one. But I think you can make the case that Penn St. should focus on academics for a while. I don't think the "millions of fans" should frankly be taken into consideration. Being that this is supposed to be a school.

Shutting down the football program strikes me as an act of vengeance for reprehensible crimes that took place. Justice can be 100% served in this case without shutting down the football program. The university board has already taken swift & severe action going so far as to fire the university president and a living legend. The people involved are being dealt with by the school, and if found to have broken the law, I'm sure will be dealt with by the DA. I see no need to punish hundreds or thousands of innocents in the football program, not to mention millions of fans.

It's vengeance if you see it as an emotional reaction. Or if it is in fact one. But I think you can make the case that Penn St. should focus on academics for a while. I don't think the "millions of fans" should frankly be taken into consideration. Being that this is supposed to be a school.

It's vengeance when it's forced upon them. It's a logical/reasonable thing to do when they do it themselves.

I think the question begs to be asked: if the senior staff engaging in a criminal conspiracy to preserve the programs rep, or whatever they thought they were doing isn't sufficient cause to shut it down until major changes can be made, what is?

Um... they should be locked up? If that conspiracy included a majority of senior leadership, sure I'd understand. But we're talking a grand total of 3 people here: Curley, Paterno, and McQueary. The last two of which did legally report it and morally failed to follow up afterwards. You can include ex-President Spanier if you want for not asking more tough questions while this was going on. Schultz had no athletic program responsibilities.

That's my only concern with shutting down the whole program. Even including the moral failing to follow up, it's agreed that McQueary and Paterno did what was legally required here. That brings your 'criminal conspiracy' down to 2 guys: Curley and Schultz. Only one of whom was in the athletics program.

Your list expands if you include the moral failings of Paterno and McQueary. But if you want to go around killing football programs because of moral failings that are NOT against NCAA rules or the law then you are well into Crusade territory.

ETA: I'm starting to develop where I stand on this. I think the university as a whole and the football program specifically would be better off for a year or two break from football. But that's the university's decision to make as there is no cause (so far) to assume a criminal culture pervaded all levels on management.

I'm in agreement with Jeff-66 here. If the football program was justifiable before based on its merits, nothing has changed to make that less true. If Penn State's academic programs were suffering because of the football program, then that's a reason to cut back on the football program, but that discussion falls outside the criminal activities of a few individuals in the institution.

Moreover, shutting down the program will have few, if any, predictable deterrent effects on similar institutions. For one thing, institutions aren't individuals, so deterrence programs won't work the same way, and for another, the penalties aren't being levied consistently. Last I heard the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church were still around, and it probably isn't plausible to shut down entire school districts or major hospitals anyway.

I think the question begs to be asked: if the senior staff engaging in a criminal conspiracy to preserve the programs rep, or whatever they thought they were doing isn't sufficient cause to shut it down until major changes can be made, what is?

Maybe this is a misunderstanding problem?

I think there are two versions of "shut it down" being argued in this thread then: the one you seem to be arguing, that until the major changes are made Penn State doesn't field a team, and what I see a lot of other people arguing which is that the program should be shut down for a certain period of time no matter what changes are made during that time.

I'm fine with shutting down PSU sports, I don't really care about that either way.

But I think it might be a bit much to say that the university will become a cesspool without college football. PSU is still a respected place of education, regardless of its athelitic programs. And I'm saying that as someone that has worked with a number of PSU grads in technical jobs.

A friend of mine outlined this chain of reasoning on Facebook, though I don't know if any of this is true:

Allegations surface in 98 and Sandusky retired suddenly and unexpectly in 99. Paterno never attended his retirement party even though the man coached with him for 22 years. 2 years later, Sandusky wrote a book titled "touched" in which he speaks of his coaching career, some of his fellow coached but rarely mentions Paterno, who he coached with for 22 years.

Then, in 2002, when told by a witness that he saw Sandusky naked in the shower with a young boy "touching and fondling", Paterno labels that "horseplay".

His point was that Paterno, at least, knew about the abuse and did nothing. If Paterno did know in 1999, then I would have to assume that he is guilty of legal infractions for not reporting it and that the only reason it was reported in 2002 was that the cat was about to get out of the bag with the eyewitness.

A Cigar, much like Scotch and Monogamy, is an acquired taste.

McChuck wrote:

I'd recommend the Scottish martial art known as f*ck You. It's mostly just head butting and then kicking people when they're on the ground.

How will it affect anyone if a football program gets shut down? Is football a human right?

I just find this impulse to "protect" the football program distasteful when the people in charge of it, either through omission or direct action, protected child rapists.

That is pretty f*cked up.

How does shutting down the football program help?

I think I said this earlier, but you have many colleges where the worst actors, be they boosters or coaches or ex-coaches are a result of the athletic programs. I think it's completely justified to shut down a sports program when the sports program is actually endangering the integrity of the college. Students who could care less about the football team are likely to have their tuition go up as the college fights law suits. At a certain point it should be the duty of colleges to defend the integrity of education from sports. Football, once again, used to be just another extracurricular activity. Like being in the band or the school newspaper. And groups like that get shut down and re-instituted constantly depending on the needs of the school. Be they legal, financial, whatever. I think it's fair for SallyNasty to question why football is untouchable. Because we like watching it? Because there may be a few actual student-athletes who play it?

At this point in Division 1 sports these are basically semi-pro sports teams except that they're subsidized by a college whose primary function should be to educate. Putting aside coaches covering up for child rape, there is talk going on about divorcing football programs from schools altogether. Ending the sham of having the athletes go to school with heavy assists from tutors. That's an actual discussion taking place because of how detached football programs have gotten from the schools where they're located. So why should they be sacred?

Once again, this comes from someone who played college football. I just think there comes a time when the program is a liability and you have to ask yourself whether the school would be better of focusing on running a school.

Is the program endangering the integrity of the college or impacting academics to a great degree? Don't get me wrong, I don't care what Penn State does with its football program. However, there appears to be a link between the few people who were covering up crimes and the entire program which I don't think has been established. If it were my call I'd fire and prosecute the people, and reform the program where necessary (though I still don't see what these incidents have to do with the football program itself).

"I basically do what Lou says." -- Yonder "My love is for Lou." -- LiquidMantis
"LouZiffer is a gentleman, a rogue, and a fantastic lover." -- Vector
"You could yoink it for a Sig." -- Demosthenes

I think the question begs to be asked: if the senior staff engaging in a criminal conspiracy to preserve the programs rep, or whatever they thought they were doing isn't sufficient cause to shut it down until major changes can be made, what is?

Um... they should be locked up?

That is totally and completely not an answer to my question.

gregrampage wrote:

It's vengeance when it's forced upon them. It's a logical/reasonable thing to do when they do it themselves.

Is it? Or could it be the NCAA separating themselves from actions they find unacceptable and would rather not tolerate?